FORD MOTOR CO. v. PACE 364 U.S. 444 (1960)

United States Supreme Court

FORD MOTOR CO. v. PACE (1960)

No. 431

Decided: November 21, 1960

Appeal dismissed for want of a properly presented federal question.

Reported below: 206 Tenn. 559, 335 S. W. 2d 360.

William T. Gossett, L. Homer Surbeck and Cecil Sims for appellant.

K. Harland Dodson, Jr. for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a properly presented federal question.

DART DRUG CORP. OF MARYLAND v. GADOL, <flCite id="/us-supreme-court/364/444#">364 U.S. 444 </flCite> (1960) 364 U.S. 444 (1960) ">

U.S. Supreme Court

DART DRUG CORP. OF MARYLAND v. GADOL, 364 U.S. 444 (1960)

364 U.S. 444

DART DRUG CORP. OF MARYLAND ET AL. v. GADOL ET AL., DOING BUSINESS AS
FOUR CORNERS PHARMACY.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 435.
Decided November 21, 1960.

Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.

Reported below: 222 Md. 372, 161 A. 2d 122.

Milton M. Gottesman for appellants.

Joseph S. Kaufman and Stedman Prescott, Jr. for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. [364 U.S. 444, 445]

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law